Happyflyer

Including Mesa and Skywest in your priority allotment is trying to write AA JS policy which is not RAH business. You control your own JS it can’t be disputed no need to make demands.

Cujo665

Them throwing you a bone is not an industry standard; it's a perk they didn't have to give.

You can't just change yours and theirs. All the JS agreements with ever other carrier will need to be changed to allow OAL - RAH, contractors and code shares - to be treated differently than OAL everybody else.

greatmovieistar

Agreed, AA controls their own jumpseat. On the same token RPA controls their own too no matter who they are flying for. You can't have it both ways and you can't be mad that RPA is just being reciprocal with this change.

greatmovieistar

That's it? Thought we were having a civil discussion here but you didn't counter any one of my points and it seems like you already had your mind made up even before asking your question.

It is industry standard to give contracted carriers a bump in priority for the JS as they already get it for the back. It is not industry standard to do the same with codeshares, but if AA wants to do that as you say it is their jumpseat.

Happyflyer

I am not mad. Your policy is BS unless you will give AA the JS over Delta on a DCI flight.

AA gives you FCFS and you are not reciprocating FCFS on your other planes, then saying paint color doesn’t matter when you deny AA for Delta.

AA gives you FCFS and does not stuff you below anyone except their own WO, and your response is to stuff them below others on 2/3 your fleet, and give them FCFS on 1/3.

greatmovieistar

lol, okay. I wouldn't be opposed for UA, AA, and DL to get an elevated priority on our jumpseat, of course with own carrier having priority on their flight. But the counter would be RPA getting the same priority as Envoy, PSA, and Peidmont regional carriers on mainline AA flights.

RIPV3

It was a civil discussion that I appreciated.

To me, just my opinion, it should go
AA
Wholly owned
Contracted/code share because you each contribute
OAL

That still would give you a lot of priority to OALs that have nothing to do with AA or its operation. As for Alaska and JB, time of check in, not priority over them. They carry AA's passengers too.

I'm just saying what sounds right to me, not taking contract or anything else into consideration. And that sounds fair, to me.

sanicom3205

You guys act like the flying you do helps AA pilots, but the opposite is true.

Everyone agrees, inclusive of you guys earlier in this thread, that a stricter scope clause benefited everyone in the end. Undisputed in this industry, right? Saying that your company operating our flights is good for us while at the same time saying stricter scope clauses are also good for us doesn’t make any sense.

I was furloughed while you guys fly our routes. Your existence is bad for everyone- particularly the 1600 or so of us who were out of a paycheck. Just to be perfectly clear.

Longhornmaniac8

Personally, I'd be ok with that, though I think there's a functional difference between a contract regional. All Republic pilots contribute positively to AA business by the nature of their agreement. Codeshares are limited, and unless there is a metal-neutral joint venture, there are still instances where B6 and AS are competitors, not codeshares, with AA.

That said, it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction which is why I'd be ok with that.

As a point of clarification, Republic has attempted to go about this exactly the way you've suggested we do it. This option was a true last resort, and comes entirely because the APA decided this was a fight worth making, to the detriment of their pilots. We have sought the change that doesn't impact AAG pilots at all for years, and they have been unwilling to come together with us. I don't know a single Republic pilot personally who is in favor of dropping AAG pilots down, but it's better to us than allowing the current unequal agreement to continue.

There is no question AAG brings more jumpseats to the equation than does Republic, but it's factually wrong to argue AA is bringing 100% of their jumpseats to the table while Republic is only bringing 33%. There is no international jumpseating allowed on AA, so the considerable portion of their operation that is international, I'm guessing somewhere in the ballpark of 30%, is not accessible to Republic jumpseaters. Moreover, AA represents basically 50% of our departures. So we're talking about a roughly 70-50% discrepancy, not a 100-30% that we've seen posted on here. It's not perfect, and I'm open to ways that make it so, but it's hardly as lopsided as it's being presented.

I think every regional pilot looking to move on would agree that more mainline flying is a good thing. That said, there's more nuance there than just regionals=bad. Part of the reason mainline salaries are what they are is because of the regionals, and I think it's in that spirit that comment was made. Furthermore, from a business sense leveraging the cost structure of the regionals during the recovery allows a quicker return to cash positivity, which also will be a good thing for mainline pilots in the long run from a stability and profit-sharing perspective. We're not in disagreement about this line of thinking overall, just adding the context that I took from the comment.

In any event, I hope you're recalled ASAP, if you haven't been already. This has been a bloodbath and no fun for anyone in any segment of the industry.

sanicom3205

I get it, it’s not fault of anyone at any regional, just not an argument I care to hear or think has any place here